header-logo header-logo

Costs

04 August 2011
Issue: 7477 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Grand v Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 902, [2011] All ER (D) 249 (Jul)

In deciding what, if any costs order to make against a litigant in person, the court had to have regard to the considerations in CPR 44.3, which showed that the court had a discretion both as to whether to make an order for the payment of costs and if so, as to the amount of any costs. In deciding whether to make any costs order, the court had to have regard to all the circumstances, including: (i) whether the applicant for costs had succeeded on part of her appeal, even if she had not been wholly successful; (ii) whether it was reasonable for her to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue; and (iii) whether, having succeeded in her appeal, in whole or in part, she had exaggerated it. There was a cap on what the claimant could recover, namely two-thirds of the amount that would have been allowed had she been represented by a lawyer. Part 44.4 CPR required the court only

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll